Well being a huge die-hard NA2 fan, I've been trying to put my finger on the problem for awhile. At least a year, maybe longer. I've played siege in just about every mod available in this game, and CRPG's version used to be the best, imo. And I honestly think we can get it back, but there are a few factors that need to be addressed.
One. Toys.
GK_Siege in Native has stolen a vast majority of former NA2 players. Every time you go there it's packed with near 100 people. One of the reasons I believe is that they've done a fantastic job of implementing "toys" that make siege... siege. Catapults, ballistae, fire arrows, boiling oil, traps, sail-able ships, all kinda neat shit. Now I'm not saying NA2 should copy GK Native, but I do think more toys equals more fun.
Two. Maps.
This is has already been touched on alot so I'll say very little here. However, in addition to the problem with overly huge maps already pointed out, one big factor that's a problem in NA2 is 'not enough' maps. Doing the same maps over and over again gets tiresome. Hell I'll do a few crappy maps just to break up the boredom of the same repetitive map spam. There are alot of good maps that have been submitted in the past that I think need to be brought back. The problem is that very few people upvote a map, but many will downvote. And that causes decent maps to be kicked out of rotation that some just want to whine about. Although I do realize there are definitely 'bad maps' that are exactly that as well.
Three. Multi.
We all play for fun. But we also play cRPG because of the ability to earn gold, gear, looms, stuff. I have tested this and retested this, with several different sets of gear. And the result is always the same. Battle will render 40k+ gold a night for me easy. Mostly due to the fact that gear will only break 'maybe' one item at a time, or none, in most rounds. Siege on the other hand, the rounds usually last longer, causing more chance for items to break. I constantly see anywhere from 3 - 5 items break PER ROUND. And that stacked with less Multi strings = alot less gold. I'm lucky to make 2k - 5k a night in Siege most times. And sometimes have actually lost money.
My suggestion to fix this is hopefully simple - although not sure how easy it would be to code. Instead of penalizing the round's losing team by dropping them to x1 automatically, instead only drop 2 Multis. So for example, "Badass_Duchebag" has a 4x and loses a round. He goes from 4x down to 2x. Or from 5x to 3x. And so on. Obviously 3x would still burn down to 1x.
I think this could be a huge help in equalizing the money gains of siege to battle. As well as make people not want to leave just because <insert map> will result in automatic loss.
Four. Respawn.
This one I'm still not sure about. Smaller pops do need smaller timers for defense, but I don't know if that can be done. I read a suggestion earlier about troop count or tickets. That 'could' work, but you'd need more for attackers most likely, and smaller pops would result in longer battles. But probably still doable.
My thoughts are though, if we take care of 1, 2, and 3... 4 will take care of itself because pop will be larger. However, if the majority of the maps are roughly close in size, the devs would be able to easier average out what respawn timer works best (since you can't make the timer different for each individual map).
Personally I'd love to handle map rotation if no one else wants to take it over for NA2. I do think that someone who loves and cares about NA2, and plays it, should be overseeing that. If there's someone qualified who has already volunteered, and are active, I definitely think it's time to get them in there and give 'em the ball.
Long live NA2!
/steps off soapbox
I know its awful
You're awful.#gottem
We are very aware of this issue, but stuff takes time and most importantly, needs a patch that needs even more time.omg le fips so official
We are very aware of this issue, but stuff takes time and most importantly, needs a patch that needs even more time.
I'll let the pictures speak.(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)
Translation:
"I could do smth about this situation, but I play on EU2 and we are fine with our playerbase. Why should I care about NA servers when I do not play there anyway?"
or
"What? Sounds like a time-consuming task. No no."
Bring back NA community servers!
Half of the NA1 maps are basically siege maps anyways.
ITS MY SERVER AND I WANT IT NOW!
imo should make Na2 with timers that balance.with player count
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
rage erased before i get banned for it
Spoken like a true pussy who plays on NA2
A few nights ago I counted consecutive wins by the attackers; it was over 15 when I stopped counting. Unless the defense team is totally stacked, or the stars align and more than 40 people are playing, it's a near-guaranteed win for attackers.
The easiest solution would to let NA admins control the NA2 map rotation, and they would mostly pick smaller maps suitable for our low population. Right now, the rotation is controlled by people that don't even play on the server.The position was offered to all NA administrators, no one wanted it.
^ This is why I have been GTXing NA2. Get on attacker team and win or waste your time...
The position was offered to all NA administrators, no one wanted it.
Small maps have the same balance problems on siege. 30 seconds to spawn as defenders is way too much on small castles when there are like 15v15 people. At least that's what happens on EU. Attackers win anyway. I can think of like 3 maps where defenders actually win with low population and those are the big castles with lots of walking. Fixed conquest might change all of that.
No, teeth and myself are responsible for the rotations, and to update them it needs a server restart.
I do agree that fixing the small pop defense spawn time is the thing that would have the biggest impact for sure.
As for small maps, they have similar balance issues but with a small pop people get to do more fighting - on the bigger maps its just running around by yourself most of the time.
I do agree that fixing the small pop defense spawn time is the thing that would have the biggest impact for sure.
As for small maps, they have similar balance issues but with a small pop people get to do more fighting - on the bigger maps its just running around by yourself most of the time.
Or you could sally out, come over to NA1, stop playing an inferior game mode with less players, and stop splitting up the already very small NA community.
Or you could sally out, come over to NA1, stop playing an inferior game mode with less players, and stop splitting up the already very small NA community.na1 has like 80+ players every night. Siege fluctuatesbut has maybe 35-40 players at primetime.
Well, obviously you guys have been doing siege wrong then for a very long time, even when it was populated enough. EU siege has a very good balance since i started playing cRPG, except for the newest maps that still need reworking, which is always the case. Balanced maps on first version is almost impossible to do on siege. Battle is much easier when it comes to balance.
Also, this "siege is for noobs" mentality is the biggest bullcrap =P
Or you could sally out, come over to NA1, stop playing an inferior game mode with less players, and stop splitting up the already very small NA community.
^ This.
Some nights on siege the roster will be filled with people like Mori, Redarrows, Jaich, Jarate, Sauce, Smithy, Voester (and other Remnant), Rustyspoons, Onimaho, etc etc...and it is far from full of "noobs"
Unfortunately I partly blame that incorrect impression on NA2's lack of population...the NA sentiment that "siege is for noobs"
I actually find it easier to go kill some noobs in battle than in siege these days...
"I've been cavalry for a dozen generations and never play anything else."
Some people enjoy a smaller server, there isn't anything wrong with that.
Well, obviously you guys have been doing siege wrong
Incessant complaining does more for progress than staid contentment, but you can look at my post history and see that I was a lot more open to the CRPG devs before the last year of shits got dropped on us NA players.As an NA player, I find myself utterly confused as to what you might be talking about with this statement. Furthermore, your incessant douchebaggery towards Fips makes my skin crawl. I can understand not liking siege, I certainly don't like it, but neither Fips nor Teeth have anything to do with why siege is bad or why NA2 has found itself without players. Hell, they haven't even been Scene Managers for a full month yet.
I could have sworn I saw Para complaining that he had all kinds of suggestions for NA2 map rotation, but they wouldn't let him touch it.Well Jacko made a thread in the NA Admin section that was up for quite a while and no one said they'd like to take the position. Para, being an admin, has full access to the thread, yet he did say anything. So he's either inactive, or doesn't want the position.
It's not just that mistakes were made, it's that people gave you solutions and were completely ignored. The feedback was there, the alternatives were there, and the badmins just hid behind an attitude just like you're doing now.
So basically, the easiest fix would be to get an NA admin who plays almost exclusively siege (like phew or elindor) on a regular basis, and give them the power "that no one wanted" to change the map rotation to accommodate the current server population.
Elindor made most of the maps that are actually properly-sized for NA, so I can't think of anyone more qualified to control the rotation. I doubt he wants to police griefers/leechers in an admin role though (nor do I), although I could be wrong. The jobs should probably be separate anyway.
NA2 rotation has had the same treatment as EU2 for the past years, with some minor changes sometimes done by shik.
Bottom line is, siege map rotation or even maps are not the reason "NA2 is dying", if it were we would see the same happening in EU. Clearly, this is not the case.
Well they can be separate, but what I really meant to say is give us an NA2 admin already (since every single admin only goes to NA1) so that they can change the map whenever it gets to a bad one (based in population).
I dont see how EU servers being active proves the maps are okay for NA use. The whole point is that EU has way more players making larger maps okay. NA however has very low population by comparison so larger maps are indeed population killers. Sorry, but just because they work for EU doesnt prove that they are flawless maps that NA should embrace. The entire point of this argument is how NA needs a separate map rotation with a smaller playerbase in mind.
Give you an NA2 admin already? People 'earn' admin, by being trustworthy enough to handle the responsibilities. If you are up for it, apply in the NA admin thread: http://forum.meleegaming.com/general-discussion/na-servers-game-admins-wanted/60/
There has been several post, in different parts of the forum, for new scene people, EU and NA. Only EU guys responded.
No one has any problem implementing a custom rotation for NA, but it has to come from you guys. Elindor has shown himself willing enough to help, and I'm sure Fips/Teeth and him can work out somethingi if they want to.
Give you an NA admin already? People 'earn' admin, by being trustworthy enough to handle the responsibilities. If you are up for it, apply in the NA admin thread: http://forum.meleegaming.com/general-discussion/na-servers-game-admins-wanted/60/
There has been several post, in different parts of the forum, for new scene people, EU and NA. Only EU guys responded.
No one has any problem implementing a custom rotation for NA, but it has to come from you guys. Elindor has shown himself willing enough to help, and I'm sure Fips/Teeth and him can work out somethingi if they want to.
We have enough NA admins, imo. But none who play siege primarily. We just got more admins who applied in that recent thread who only play battle. All I am saying is we could really use someone who is mainly in siege. And I am not asking adminship to be given to myself, either.
i am pretty active in siege and play almost every night during primetime I applied to be an NA admin (wanting to help with NA2 and Na7) No one contacted me or seemed in the least bit interested in interviewing the people who applied. Why dont you atleast give the poll to change maps, so that even if there is no admin the handful of players on NA2 can change the map to a more suitable one.
TLDR: Combine Strategus ticket and spawn system with Siege flags and make it into a Conquest/Domination mode like in Battlefield where the team to not run out of tickets first, with deaths and holding less ground draining tickets, wins. Use a limited amount of very high quality maps instead of 100+ on battle or siege. Put the objectives over different terrain so there are forts and cover that need an infantry push, or more open/hilly areas that require support by cav and ranged to capture. Spawn points rotate with territory captured. Ultimately create a gamemode that promotes teamwork and objective gameplay so classes perform their roles instead of hunting for kills and preserving their life.
My thought process:
A whine thread about battle servers being crap got me thinking about whats good and bad about cRPG, all the game types, and all the effort the dev team put into Strategus development. I'm starting to see a big gap in the potential of cRPG gameplay between what we are now so used to in Battle and Siege, compared to the innovation the dev team is capable of with things like Rageball and Strategus. I wrote a few posts and I am basically just going to copy them here but I wanted to describe how I see a "conquest" type gamemode for cRPG that people are starting to wish for, accomplished by drawing from the best of all the modes available in cRPG for an experience that sounds, at least to me, like it would be the best thing to happen to cRPG.
A fully realized conquest/domination type game mode, that is fast, functional, rewards infantry play and encourages even pubbies to do teamwork, and has really good maps.. not 110 shit generic maps like battle, just 5-6 GOOD maps designed for the mode, even only 2-3 to start..
Would be the best thing for this game in the past year, would be tremendously more entertaining then any strat gimmicks, and could be a flagship gametype for a future MELEEGAMING.COM entry into the donkeycrew's game catalogue.
I wouldn't want to see a single respawn either. Just ape Battlefield's conquest a lot. Teams get tickets and losing ground or lives ticks them away. What's so shitty about battle as an infantry player is you can man up and charge to take ground that is being contested then just die to pikes, a cav couch, headshot, or whatever. If you want to get points stay alive and not die to ranged or cav instantly you need to honestly play like a pussy more often then not, even if being an over aggressive dude can have moments of hilarity/great success too.
The metagame I always honed in my mind when I was a strat commander, most of which never really work that well because even strat just is glorified team death match.. is the idea of map control. Occuping territory with infantry. Using ranged to facilitate movement of infantry players. Cav threaten the routes infantry must take to get from points a-b-c or can be a mobile force like jeeps in battlefield to threaten rear spawns. Strat NEVER plays like this though. Its boring. Its just TDM, regardless of map or setting.
Just making really interesting maps for this mode, with you know A B C points, and spawns turn to these points if you control them and maybe a few others around it that you set like Strat battles. Maybe mini castles around the points and stuff like that. You could also use the reworked town maps for the big Strat battles that I only got to play a couple times ever, and some of the towns that i saw the UIF take are too great of maps to be wasted in Strategus.
I imagine a few flags like in Siege across the map, on places like top of hills or in the middle of ruins or keeps.. just places that are fun to fight on. Like the map Field by the River, probably the best native map. People naturally gravitate towards the set of ruins on one side of the river. Places of interest like this would have the Siege flags on them, and capping it will reduce a gradual drain of tickets on top of the drain you get from deaths. So like a Strat battle, but with more fluidity and another layer of depth in a give and take of land, instead of solely being about grinding out a TDM count of lives.
Strat battles have the set spawn system built into them already, so you could just slap a couple of these around the siege flags, and if none selected just randomly select a siege flag that your team owns to be a spawn.
Basically I feel like this mode could be created by using assets that all already exist in cRPG. You guys have created some awesome gameplay possiblities in Strategus, that the community often look forward to instead of mindless siege or battle server gameplay, and you know how often people bitch about maps and cav and it being unfair and everything for pick up and play sessions.
So I think it would be very forward minded for the dev team to consider porting some of the best features of Strat into a more accessible game mode, because Strat battles are rare, are full of bullshit drama and bugs, require effort and scheduling.. but have ultimately some of the most teamwork focused gameplay and inspired design compared to the port of native warband modes that just ape counter-strike and stuff.
You guys tried out that Stronghold or whatever mode a while ago that I think was basically too confusing and not focused enough on what I think all of us agree is the best part of Warband/cRPG: Charging with a bunch of bros in a shield wall with pikes and whatnot, archers shooting away at each other, fighting over concise objectives. Moments of gameplay where you feel like two armies fighting for something. Not having to run and chase the last few alive archers across hilly generic map village map #3 for the last 2 minutes of a round, every other round. Or being couched at spawn and sitting out for 6 minutes.
Siege gives you a basic objective and frees up the stress from a single life, kiting and cav, and keeps up a sustained level of intensity that is very fun to play for short gaming sessions. This is why "bads" go on siege: casual type players, who this mod honestly drive away in flocks, probably like this kind of gaming much better instead of the counter-strike ONE LIFE MAD CAV OPEN FIELDS GOOD LUCK BRO mode. But Siege is full of shit maps, cav can't do anything, it just feels half assed.
Now if you can get that kind of objective based, fun, fast paced Siege gameplay on maps that represent the most balanced and fun experiences in Strat or Battle servers, you'd have something really great. Some of those reworked town maps that we only got to see at the end of Strat 3.0 when UIF were taking them.. those were some amazing maps! And would be perfect for a game type like this, instead of only getting to play them 3 times a year.
That's a lot of damned words I know but I combined my posts so people could have a place to talk about a game type like this instead of being buried in shit threads of people simply saying cav is OP. I dunno, seems like it would be pretty fun to me!
So this is a pretty odd, but relevant question. If I'm on defense and a teammate is trying to open the gate for no good reason, and there is no mod around, how should I respond? I saw somebody do this at the beginning of the round where the flag is right next to the gate, and it looked like it was going to happen again, so I kicked and then nudged him [he didn't report]. Poll Kick and Ban were unavailable, and I could easily see myself being kicked from the server if he reported those kicks/nudges [and tking would probably get me banned].screenshot/post ban thread
I think the problem isn't just that admins don't play siege, it's that hardly anyone is playing siege, let alone any admins. We have at least two admins who would primarily play in siege already, they've just been inactive or playing elsewhere some of the time because the server has been so empty. It hasn't been completely abandoned by the team; many of us are easily reachable with problems, if you care to contact us about specific people causing trouble at a given moment, and would oblige switching over to spectate the issue.
We're not giving siege-only players admin power on the single basis that they would play on the server.
I didn't know this thread would turn into such a big discussion! Yes NA Siege needs to have different treatment compared to EU Siege because of the player amount difference. But that doesn't mean we need extra special treatment or anything. But we all know devs are biased to EU over NA problems.
I personally love all siege maps and will play it with 20 people and have a lot of fun doing it.
Admins on NA1 don't have any problem switching over to NA2 to deal with a map or player issue. Several of us also provide our Steam information so that we can be contacted even when not playing and also are willing to login to help out when we are able. Try either option, or of course, hit up irc.
I was playing siege earlier, and much to my surprise after populating the server with a few friends the server eventually grew to nearly 30 v 30 at one point.
Toys.
Phew, I agree...although I did not see them last night and they will surely need tweaks as we see how they are used , but I think the idea of siege mechanisms is good.
Balista = good idea
Catapults = works like shit in strat, no way it would work better in siege, better avoid this (also not enough time in round)
Boiling oil = probably would work fine (not sure how this would work mechanically)
Falling logs/rocks = also probably would work fine (crushthrough blunt dmg)
BATTERING RAM = I love this idea, break down doors faster
Some of these would change map balances but when a mapper goes into his map to add these elements he should balance for them as necessary while he is in there.
It would also be cool if defenders could brace the gate from the inside to lessen the damage it took from each blow... but I think that is just asking for too much now. :wink:
It's a fine line between increasing realism with siege engines/etc and turning a PvP game into a PvW(ood) game. If anyone here played Dark Age of Camelot back in the day, sieges in that game were mostly hours of breaking doors. Realistic, but not very fun.
The Ballistae are cool because they are a different way for players to kill each other.
lol phew doesnt need to be on the ballista he wrecks enough face on foot.
haha, I really wanna know his build. best way to get valor is OP shielder* in siege... and I think we can all agree phew is OP.
*Not calling shielders OP... just his annoying build :P
18/21 w/ 5 power throw. I always like the way both Rusty and Turbo played (despite being totally opposite styles), and I couldn't pick which style I liked more. So I copied Rusty's (previous) build+PT with Turbo's gear.
Anyone that has faced me on the duel server can attest that I suck in any kind of 1v1, but I've probably played more siege than anyone else on NA, so I've learned a lot of siege-specific tricks that mask my suckage. One of them is to avoid you on the battlefield :)
hurray, I finally know how to make my shielder next gen! Aldo, is your build finished at level 30, 31... or maybe not even until 32 or 33? Since You seem to have 6 IF 6 PS 5 PT 7 shield and... some unknown amount of athletics and WM. Then again you may have less IF and just all +3 armor.
Build isn't maxed until 35, I'm just missing the IF now@lvl 33.
[Inset very long whistle here]
Okay then... maybe I shall choose a more modest build for now... in all honesty shielding is just too boring for me. I was hoping to go hybrid thrower to spice it up a bit, but I would want to be useful at lvl 30... no way I would have the kind of patience to get past 31 as a shielder. The highest I've ever gone on my main is only lvl 32, and I actually enjoy that class!
Since we are talking about shielder builds....
Next gen I might try 21/15 shielder with 5 power throw but I think I might not have enough wpf to split between my 1h and throwing because I would like to keep my 1h over 100.
I'm just wondering how you feel about 6 ps because I use a Nordic war sword which has 31c and I usually have 7 ps. 6 ps seems fine with your build phew because from your picture you seem to have a battle axe but my sword might not work so well.
Since we are talking about shielder builds....
Next gen I might try 21/15 shielder with 5 power throw but I think I might not have enough wpf to split between my 1h and throwing because I would like to keep my 1h over 100.
I'm just wondering how you feel about 6 ps because I use a Nordic war sword which has 31c and I usually have 7 ps. 6 ps seems fine with your build phew because from your picture you seem to have a battle axe but my sword might not work so well.
As an NA player, I find myself utterly confused...
I think the main issue with NA 2 is not enough people play it.
My current strategy with an agility build is to get such high athletics, that I can wear even more armor (7.5 weight = 3agi+1ath) and still remain fast. Due to the way armor works, the higher soak combined with moving towards the end of my opponent's swings allows me to survive a good number of attacks.
By the way, where does someone go to find out that sort of thing? You also mentioned heavy armors and soak... care to point me in the right direction?Damage formula is here (http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?topic=168722.0). Soak and reduce multipliers can be found in the cRPG 'module.ini'. Note that the randomness in soak/reduce was removed (or greatly reduced, not sure which) a couple patches ago.
Thanks, I've been meaning to find out more about the behind-the-scenes mechanics of the game for a while now.
I mean holy shit, just look at this thread, the closest anybody ever got to owning-up to their mistakes was when Fips said that they were "aware of problems", and even that's a cop-out. Apart from that, to hear the badmins and devs talk, you'd think they believed every decision they made was perfection. They've never done anything wrong, of course, and if we're upset with the way things are then it's just a case of us not "appreciating them" enough. About the best we can expect is that sometimes they'll "take back" a bad tweak, eventually. When was the last time things worked the other way, and a good idea actually struggled its way up from the community into the game? When did feedback ever matter except in the rare instances it managed to bother a certain number of the devs' European guildmates?
chadz did this mod better in the old days, before all these other too-many-cooks came along and spoiled the soup. I don't get what happened. It's like he recruited people on to get some technical assistance, which they were good at, but then he made the mistake of letting them decide things too. Now the mod is defined by the newbie-devs'/badmins' personal biases and friendships, without any regard for how it started, what its competition is, what the biggest gameplay issues really are, or how the changes being made affect the server populations.
NA2 is dead for the same reason that we have a "nudge attack" but no fix for 1H bugs/balance.
Funny thing is, NA2 had great pop last night (and I think the one before too)...
Maybe this thread is helping in spite of itself! :)
In my 4000+ hours of playing NA2, I rarely encountered any issues that required an admin to resolve. Leechers get reported, griefers opening gates/etc on D get poll kicked; the community does a good job of policing itself.
However, the fact that offense wins 90%+ of the time when the population is <30 is the #1 problem facing the server. People get stuck on D for a few rounds in a row and GTX, or they do like I do and just ignore the flag while trying to get valor (which just pisses off everyone that is actually trying to defend the flag). Once the population gets decent (>50), defense starts to win and overall the experience is pretty good.
So the proposed mechanic of decreasing defender respawn timer as a function of population would be a godsend for NA2, since the population would grow a lot faster if defense had a chance during low-pop times. So the only question for the devs is if this change is even possible.
I think i'm the odd ball here, i'd love to see siege get more populated but i'm just fine with less than 30 atm. ( Maybe it's because of MB banner stack ) But the more the merrier, unless it stops the banner stack steam roll. XD
Is that how armor and athletics work? Every 7.5 weight = 3agi + 1 ath (or really just one ath, depending how you look at it)? I've been meaning to find that info out for some time... So wearing ~16.8 weight total armor and having 8 ath would give me an effective ath of 5.76 (+ some agi bonus)? Does weapon weight contribute to this?
4000+ hrs? Holy sheeeeeit.
Maybe it's more like 3000; it was 2600 on Steam when cRPG switched to the launcher. I haven't played a single other game since I discovered cRPG, siege mode. 2.5 years I think? It has flaws, but I haven't found another game that comes close for overall fun.
Weapon weight has even more impact than armor weight when it comes to the weapon you're currently holding. While sheathed, weapon weight functions the same as armor weight for runspeed reduction. In your hand, the weight is somehow multiplicative with the length of the weapon, both contributing to how much slower you move. Link (http://forum.meleegaming.com/beginner's-help-and-guides/game-mechanic-megathread!/msg346946/#msg346946)
Maybe it's more like 3000; it was 2600 on Steam when cRPG switched to the launcher. I haven't played a single other game since I discovered cRPG, siege mode. 2.5 years I think? It has flaws, but I haven't found another game that comes close for overall fun.
I feel ya Phew, I think I have like 3000 hours or something. It would be more if I actually played now a days.